Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names - Wolfgang Lorenz - edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom

130 messages in edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacomRe: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

From	Sent On	Attachments
71 earlier messages
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 2:56 pm
Walker, Ken	Feb 19, 2012 3:08 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 4:05 pm
Bob Mesibov	Feb 19, 2012 4:07 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 4:38 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 5:09 pm
Curtis Clark	Feb 19, 2012 5:18 pm
Bob Mesibov	Feb 19, 2012 5:33 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 5:50 pm
Kenneth Kinman	Feb 19, 2012 7:27 pm
Weakley, Alan	Feb 19, 2012 7:47 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 7:50 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 7:52 pm
Curtis Clark	Feb 19, 2012 8:13 pm
Stephen Thorpe	Feb 19, 2012 8:22 pm
Dr.B.J.Tindall	Feb 19, 2012 11:08 pm
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 19, 2012 11:52 pm
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 19, 2012 11:56 pm
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 1:02 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 1:24 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 1:27 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 1:32 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 20, 2012 3:07 am
Curtis Clark	Feb 20, 2012 7:28 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 20, 2012 8:55 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 9:07 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 20, 2012 9:40 am
Richard Zander	Feb 20, 2012 10:35 am
Wolfgang Lorenz	Feb 20, 2012 11:03 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 20, 2012 11:09 am
David Campbell	Feb 20, 2012 11:41 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 21, 2012 1:03 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 21, 2012 8:26 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 21, 2012 8:48 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 22, 2012 12:30 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 22, 2012 12:44 am
Adam Cotton	Feb 22, 2012 3:00 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 22, 2012 3:11 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 23, 2012 12:27 am
Wolfgang Lorenz	Feb 23, 2012 2:12 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 23, 2012 3:31 am
Kim van der Linde	Feb 23, 2012 3:43 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 23, 2012 4:02 am
Dr Brian Taylor	Feb 23, 2012 4:29 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 23, 2012 5:51 am
Kim van der Linde	Feb 23, 2012 6:12 am
Dr Brian Taylor	Feb 23, 2012 8:06 am
Fran...@dmns.org	Feb 23, 2012 10:04 am
Richard Zander	Feb 23, 2012 10:21 am
Wolfgang Lorenz	Feb 23, 2012 10:50 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 24, 2012 12:28 am
Bradley Boyle	Feb 24, 2012 11:19 am
Richard Pyle	Feb 24, 2012 11:33 am
Fran...@dmns.org	Feb 24, 2012 12:08 pm
Dr.B.J.Tindall	Feb 25, 2012 12:30 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 25, 2012 12:33 am
Paul van Rijckevorsel	Feb 25, 2012 12:36 am
Francisco Welter-Schultes	Feb 25, 2012 4:18 am
Michael Schmitt	Feb 27, 2012 1:55 am

Subject:	Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names
From:	Wolfgang Lorenz (faun...@googlemail.com)
Date:	Feb 23, 2012 10:50:15 am
List:	edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom

Richard Zander wrote: "We botanists use "specific epithet" for the last word of the binomen. A species name is a binomen."

and this is what I think zoologists should do in the next Code...

The Zoological Code is mainly ruling on 3 categories of names: 1) "Family-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 8 2) "Genus-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 9 3) "Species-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 10

The name of a species-group nominal taxon is a bi- or trinomen. But the Glossary says a species-group name is the epithet alone... Logic???

Wolfgang

2012/2/23 Richard Zander <Rich...@mobot.org>

We botanists use "specific epithet" for the last word of the binomen. A species name is a binomen.

ï»¿

* * * * * * * * * * * * Richard H. Zander Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm

-----Original Message----- From: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Fran...@dmns.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:05 PM To: ki...@kimvdlinde.com; fwel...@gwdg.de Cc: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Well, Drosophila melanogaster (or Sophophora melanogaster) IS the species name. melanogaster is the specific name

I see no advantage to re-define what is even used in common language.

Frank

Dr Frank T. Krell Curator of Entomology Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature & Science 2001 Colorado Boulevard Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA Fran...@dmns.org Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

Upcoming: Combined Annual Meeting of the Lepidopterist's Society and the Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica, 23-29 July 2012, Denver Museum of Nature & Science; more info at http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as responsible stewards of the future.

-----Original Message----- From: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kim van der Linde Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:13 AM To: Francisco Welter-Schultes Cc: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

What about: Family name: Drosophilidae Genus name: Sophophora Species name: melanogaster Binomial name: Sophophora melanogaster

As straight as an arrow.

Yes, I know, in common language, the binomial name is given as the species name. However, that is not a problem for generic usage by lay people who are not into the intricacies, while experts can easily distinguish between species name and binomial name for clarity.

Kim

On 2/23/2012 8:51 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:

"Species" is a concept, this is a taxonomical term. We need a term for the name for such a concept, for a nomenclatural term, to be widely understood not only by insiders.

Francisco

Francisco et al,

That might be fine but in the world of myrmecologists (wrongly I think) the species-group pops up as a "modern" version of the subgenus.

What is wrong with the simple term species which I have always thought, since VIth Form school in 1957, to be the genus name plus the species name?

Too much jargon and not enough simple English.

Brian Taylor

On 23/02/2012 11:31, "Francisco Welter-Schultes"<fwel...@gwdg.de> wrote:

The definition of the species-group name in the Glossary is sufficiently clear, I think. It refers to the second name in a genus-species combination, and to the third name in a genus-species-subspecies combination. It is not the combination. The combination is called species name and subspecies name. Your proposed definition could be used for these.

Francisco

isn't it the ICZN glossary (page 110) that is most confusing?: "species-group name. A specific name or a subspecific name" "specific name. The second name in a binomen and in a trinomen" [i.e., epithet] "subspecific name. The third name in a trinomen" [i.e,.epithet]

Shouldn't it be something like: 'species-group name. The combination of two or three names, the first being the generic name followed by one or two epithets. A species-group name can be interpolated by a subgeneric name (in round brackets) or a word indicating the rank (e.g., "subspec.").'

Wolfgang

----------------------------- Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany

2012/2/23 Paul van Rijckevorsel<dipt...@freeler.nl>

From: "Adam Cotton"<adam...@cscoms.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:01 PM

It seems to me that the misunderstanding here is actually about how the word "available" is applied under the ICZN Code.

The important point here is that the Code governs 3 levels of nomenclature, *Family Group*, *Genus Group* and *Species Group* names as SEPARATE entities. The individual names in each group are either available or unavailable depending on whether they comply with the various relevant articles of the Code.

Under the Zoological Code the word "available" is not applied to a combination of genus + species but to the individual (single word) names. The VALID name of a species consists of the oldest available genus and species name applicable to the taxon.

Subspecies, Subgenus, Tribe names etc all fall into one of the 3 groups governed by the Code (for example, a Subspecies name is part of the Species Group names, a Tribe name is part of the Family Group). What level these names are treated at is a taxonomic decision NOT governed by the Code, so a taxonomist can treat a Subspecies name as a species if he believes this to be the case. In separating subspecies into (say) two species the VALID name for each species is the oldest AVAILABLE Species Group name among the taxa considered within each species.

Junior synonyms are still available names and can become the valid

name if

the previously valid name is actually shown to be unavailable (usually due to homonymy or a non-Code compliant original description, such as at infrasubspecific level). This is particularly important for

homonymy,

all available names are considered for homonymy, as are some names that are actually unavailable under the Code, but still available only

for

the

purposes of homonymy.

I hope this clarifies things.

*** Yes, the zoological Code may be said to govern three (or four) separate nomenclatural universes, but this is not what causes the confusion, at least not directly.

In the family group the publication of any new scientific name also makes available the corresponding scientific names in all the other ranks. This is not a problem (although it is a big difference with how things are arranged under the botanical Code).

In the genus group the publication of any new scientific name also makes available the corresponding scientific name in the other rank. Again, this is not a problem (although, again, it is a big difference with how things are arranged under the botanical Code).

However, 46.1 is problematical. It is clear that this has been drafted in parallel to the provisions on the other two groups, but it is very hard to read. The last part of the sentence speaks of nominal taxa, which have come into existence by the publication of the first name. The Glossary is quite clear about nominal taxa and what constitutes their scientific (and available) name: it explicitly points out Homo sapiens as the available name of a nominal taxon at the species level. So, once Homo sapiens has been published the name Homo sapiens sapiens also exists. So far so good.

The first part of 46.1 appears to be a mine field. Clearly Homo sapiens is established only as the scientific name of a species, not as the name of a subspecies, nor can it be the name of subspecies. On the other hand, the entry on "establish" in the Glossary seems to be very sure that only names of nominal taxa (uninominal, binominal, or trinominal) can be established (why else have a separate term, otherwise it would just be equivalent to "to make available"). So, I am not getting anywhere in reading this.

I am guessing that the intent of the first part of 46.1 is something like: A species-group name made available as part of a name of a taxon at either rank in the species group is thereby simultaneously made available, by the same author, for use as part of the scientific name of a nominal taxon at the other rank in the group;

However, that is not what it says ...

Paul

P.S. the Glossary is pretty clear that only a binomen can be the valid name of a species (and this is borne out by the body of the Code).

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List Taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom